Hi, I'm having difficulty with another user ( Alexbrn) on posting and retaining certain knowledge about the effects of atypical antipsychotics on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the effects of adjunctive antidepressant use to an antipsychotic also for these negative symptoms on the atypical antipsychotics page. There are a number of issues I would like to understand better. To start with, I'm wondering whether the following information is acceptable to be added based on the cited references after them.
Alexbrn removed my study about adjunctive antidepressant use with an antipsychotic as being effective for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This article clearly showed multiple studies that demonstrated improvements with this medicine regimen. I feel that he is in the wrong to have done this.
Next, I'm wondering whether the following source is acceptable. It's from 2009 but it demonstrates asenapine's potent positive and negative symptom improvements and clearly cites many studies to backup its findings. Alexbrn describes it as an "old, poor source" without going into details. In what way does it fit this classification? Ridiculous. It's not like you can have a magic marker that automatically makes all knowledge that is already well established from 5+ years old studies to be updated stating the same thing every time a new year rolls along.
In one of my edits I tried adding some primary sources as "helpers" to a secondary source that spoke to the same effect, such as these: [6] [7], which I thought, as per WP:MEDRS: "Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources.", might be permissible. Although it seems a bit unclear since in the same guideline it states that primary sources should not be used to debunk, contradict, or counter conclusions made by another secondary source. But if the primary sources by proxy of a secondary source report the same findings for the postulation made, what then? Well, it's not that important if they aren't acceptable to be used.
First Alexbrn described atypical antipsychotics as having no therapeutic benefit for schizophrenia, which, as I stated here on the talk page, is an insult to the psychiatric profession and decades of clearly established professional research. Now he states that "Overall there is no good evidence that atypical antipsychotics have any therapeutic benefit for treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia". He seems to be following in line with the current previous postulation made by Doc James, which states that "Antipsychotics only appear to improve secondary negative symptoms of schizophrenia in the short term and may worsen negative symptoms overall." I also want to draw attention to the fact that the article where this is being written is the atypical antipsychotics page, not the antipsychotics page, so it's placement is somewhat ill-fitting. Both of these statements are crude overgeneralizations that ignore the effects of atypical antipsychotics' multi-faceted binding profiles. I would like to have mediation to review this matter.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
Hi, I'm having difficulty with another user ( Alexbrn) on posting and retaining certain knowledge about the effects of atypical antipsychotics on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the effects of adjunctive antidepressant use to an antipsychotic also for these negative symptoms on the atypical antipsychotics page. There are a number of issues I would like to understand better. To start with, I'm wondering whether the following information is acceptable to be added based on the cited references after them.
Alexbrn removed my study about adjunctive antidepressant use with an antipsychotic as being effective for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This article clearly showed multiple studies that demonstrated improvements with this medicine regimen. I feel that he is in the wrong to have done this.
Next, I'm wondering whether the following source is acceptable. It's from 2009 but it demonstrates asenapine's potent positive and negative symptom improvements and clearly cites many studies to backup its findings. Alexbrn describes it as an "old, poor source" without going into details. In what way does it fit this classification? Ridiculous. It's not like you can have a magic marker that automatically makes all knowledge that is already well established from 5+ years old studies to be updated stating the same thing every time a new year rolls along.
In one of my edits I tried adding some primary sources as "helpers" to a secondary source that spoke to the same effect, such as these: [6] [7], which I thought, as per WP:MEDRS: "Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources.", might be permissible. Although it seems a bit unclear since in the same guideline it states that primary sources should not be used to debunk, contradict, or counter conclusions made by another secondary source. But if the primary sources by proxy of a secondary source report the same findings for the postulation made, what then? Well, it's not that important if they aren't acceptable to be used.
First Alexbrn described atypical antipsychotics as having no therapeutic benefit for schizophrenia, which, as I stated here on the talk page, is an insult to the psychiatric profession and decades of clearly established professional research. Now he states that "Overall there is no good evidence that atypical antipsychotics have any therapeutic benefit for treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia". He seems to be following in line with the current previous postulation made by Doc James, which states that "Antipsychotics only appear to improve secondary negative symptoms of schizophrenia in the short term and may worsen negative symptoms overall." I also want to draw attention to the fact that the article where this is being written is the atypical antipsychotics page, not the antipsychotics page, so it's placement is somewhat ill-fitting. Both of these statements are crude overgeneralizations that ignore the effects of atypical antipsychotics' multi-faceted binding profiles. I would like to have mediation to review this matter.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)